Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Chand And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 SB OF 2000 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 13, 2012
Raghbir Chand and others.
......Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Virk, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Three appellants have impugned their convicted under Section 9(B) of the Explosive Act, 1884, for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were further to undergo RI for one month.
On 7.3.1990, Sub Inspector Ashok Puri received a secret information that appellant, Raghbir Chand and Jeevan Lal, in connivance with appellant Sukhdev Singh (driver) and Cleaner, Ishwer Dial were steeling liquified petroleum gas from Tanker CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 SB OF 2000 :{ 2 }:
No.URR-1032 and filling the same into cylinders. Allegation further was that this was being done to sell the cylinders unauthorisedly. The information also was that in case raid is conducted, then the appellants can be caught red handed alongwith the apparatus for filling the gas cylinders. Believing this information to be correct and finding this to be revealing offences, the police officer raided the premises of Cheema Petrol Pump, Mandi Gobindgarh, where this process of filling gas cylinder was being carried out. The police officer, thus, apprehended the appellants, while they were filling the gas cylinders from the tanker referred to above. The appellants had allegedly filled 14 gas cylinders and were in the process of filling 15th cylinder, when the police party raided the place. The Investigating Officer disconnected the apparatus and took the cylinder as well as the apparatus and the tanker in question in possession. Necessary documents, like, search memo, site plan etc. were prepared, besides recording the statements of witnesses. The Investigating Officer also got weighed the gas tanker. On completion of investigation, he finally submitted a challan against the appellants, who were charge sheeted and finally convicted and sentenced as already noticed.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident is of the year 1990. The trial, after investigation, was held and conviction recorded in the year 2000. They have faced the trial for nearly 8 years as the challan was presented in the year 1992. Thus, the appellants had faced trial for nearly period of 10 years, when their convictions were recorded and were sentenced. As per the counsel, the prosecution mainly relied upon the version of police witnesses and no independent witness was examined. Certain CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 SB OF 2000 :{ 3 }:
discrepancies are highlighted in their version, which were explained by the trial Court by observing that the evidence was being given after 8 to 10 years of the incident and the memory, as such, was likely to fade.
Bawa Singh, PW, had not supported the prosecution. He was examined as a defence witness and dented the prosecution case and accordingly the counsel pleads for giving benefit of doubt to the appellants. At the same time, the counsel chose to plead mercy and prayed for showing some leniency as the appellants have suffered enough. The counsel submits that the appellants had faced trial for nearly 10 years, when they were convicted in the year 2000 and another 11 years have gone passed during which time, they have faced the agony of this torturous wait, their fate hanging in balance. The counsel thus, pleads for mercy by stating that their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
The State counsel, however, has opposed this prayer but could not offer any justification for the delay in completion and conclusion of this trial and proceedings and that this wait has certainly been agonizing for the appellants.
The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 9(B) of the Explosive Act. No doubt, they had taken a risk, which is of a dangerous character by doing this act, but it did not lead to any damage. The pendency of the proceedings against the appellants and the fact that their action did not lead to any damage, case of showing some leniency is made out. Even otherwise, the sentence appears a bit harsh.
Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the appellants is CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.301 SB OF 2000 :{ 4 }:
reduced to the period already undergone. The fine of `500/- as imposed, however, is enhanced to `5000/- to be paid by the appellants. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
The appeal otherwise is dismissed.
January 13, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE